9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. ORDER Nobody is present on behalf of the respondent. Heard the learned AR. 2. The facts of the case briefly are that the appellant is engaged in the activity of civil construction, erection and commissioning services and is also registered with the Department for the works contracts services since 2007 but providing services since 2004. The Department gathered intelligence that the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 7,99,038/-. After adjustment with the excess duty paid, the liability worked out to Rs. 50,963/-. Demand in respect of works contract service was worked out to Rs. 24,38,810/- after deducting the payment of the appellant from the total demand of Rs. 29,65,782/-.The demand was raised invoking the extended period of limitation with proposal to impose penalties. 3. The proceedings initiated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s submitted on behalf of the Revenue that benefit of reduced penalty of 25% of the tax demanded is an option extended to the assessee if the tax with interest and 25% penalty is paid within 30 days of the adjudication order. Once the assessee exercises the option of payment of 25% of the penalty, he deemed to have accepted the demand of Service tax made under Proviso to Section 73 of the Finance A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is an instruction issued by the Board that once the assessee pays the Service tax and interest and intimates the department of the same on the basis of assessment of tax liability of the Central Excise Officer no show cause notice for differential amount of Service tax or interest can be demanded after one year except where there is a case for invoking suppression of facts, misdeclaration, fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
